CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

4,68,76,378/-. 7. On this aspect, observation of the learned Assessing Officer was that just two months prior to the selling of shares by the assessee at Rs. 10/- per share, M/s. Ind-Barath Power Infra Ltd., raised money from private equity funds by allotting shares at a premium of Rs. 187.58 in October, 2009. Learned Assessing Officer

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

378 as on 08.08.2017. Likewise, the cash balance as on 30.10.2017 is Rs.1,13,141/- and the same is Rs.72,165/- as on 31.10.2017. The firm M/s Supreme Agro, is a new firm established during the year only and the sales started from 22.11.2017. Even otherwise, as per the cash book, there are no worthwhile cash transactions to withdraw Rs.70

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

378 as on 08.08.2017. Likewise, the cash balance as on 30.10.2017 is Rs.1,13,141/- and the same is Rs.72,165/- as on 31.10.2017. The firm M/s Supreme Agro, is a new firm established during the year only and the sales started from 22.11.2017. Even otherwise, as per the cash book, there are no worthwhile cash transactions to withdraw Rs.70

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

378 as on 08.08.2017. Likewise, the cash balance as on 30.10.2017 is Rs.1,13,141/- and the same is Rs.72,165/- as on 31.10.2017. The firm M/s Supreme Agro, is a new firm established during the year only and the sales started from 22.11.2017. Even otherwise, as per the cash book, there are no worthwhile cash transactions to withdraw Rs.70

VIATON ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

378 ITR 410 and Punjab Stainless Steel Ind. 162 Taxman 9. 6. On the aspect of disallowance of the administrative expenses, plea of the assessee was that it already commenced the business by placing the order of its plant and machinery and started installing the electricity plants and, therefore, such an expense should have been allowed. Reliance was placed

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

378 ITR 33 (Delhi) holds that section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance comes into play only in relation to an assessee’s exempt income than having any independent application. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to Revenue’ stand placing reliance on the CBDT’s Circular No.5/2014 dt.11/02/2014. The above stated case law quoted at the assessee’s behest makes

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

378 ITR 33 (Delhi) holds that section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance comes into play only in relation to an assessee’s exempt income than having any independent application. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to Revenue’ stand placing reliance on the CBDT’s Circular No.5/2014 dt.11/02/2014. The above stated case law quoted at the assessee’s behest makes

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

378 ITR 33 (Delhi) holds that section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance comes into play only in relation to an assessee’s exempt income than having any independent application. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to Revenue’ stand placing reliance on the CBDT’s Circular No.5/2014 dt.11/02/2014. The above stated case law quoted at the assessee’s behest makes

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

378 ITR 33 (Delhi) holds that section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance comes into play only in relation to an assessee’s exempt income than having any independent application. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to Revenue’ stand placing reliance on the CBDT’s Circular No.5/2014 dt.11/02/2014. The above stated case law quoted at the assessee’s behest makes

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

property to claim deduction u/sec.54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.4,82,58,378/-. The Assessing Officer has restricted the claim of the assessee to Rs.2,41,07,403/- for want of supporting bills and documentary evidences. He challenged the Order of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A), but, could not succeed. 32. Before the Tribunal

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

property to claim deduction u/sec.54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.4,82,58,378/-. The Assessing Officer has restricted the claim of the assessee to Rs.2,41,07,403/- for want of supporting bills and documentary evidences. He challenged the Order of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A), but, could not succeed. 32. Before the Tribunal

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

378 ITR 33 (Del.) has held that section 14A will not apply where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, as per our considered view, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and CO No. 23/H/2018 Medha Servo Drives Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyd. therefore, this ground

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

378 ITR 33 (Del.) has held that section 14A will not apply where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, as per our considered view, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and CO No. 23/H/2018 Medha Servo Drives Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyd. therefore, this ground